Article by Linda J. Rusch
Contract analysis at both the theoretical and practical level has been a hot topic over the last two decades. Law review articles and books positing theoretical bases for contract enforcement abound. The law formulation and revision process in the area of contracts has precipitated interesting discussions about what the principles of contracts should be. The explosions of technology and information have created new forums and methodologies for creating and enforcing contracts. For scholars and teachers in the area of contracts, this is an exciting time. There is also an overwhelming amount of new information to assimilate for possible use in the classroom. This Article is an attempt to provide two types of information to those who teach contract principles. Part I provides an overview of the UCC Article 2 revision process and the themes of that revision. Those teachers who teach some or all of existing Article 2 in their courses can use this overview to help them decide how they might use the revision draft to debate the policy issues raised by the existing law and the revision. Part II provides an example of using a comparative approach to discussing policy rationales for contract doctrine by digging deeper into one particular issue, the meaning of assent in contract. By comparing the approaches developing both domestically and internationally, one can see that this difficult question has no easy resolution, but can help to deepen an appreciation of the policy implications of adopting any particular meaning of assent.
About the Author
Linda J. Rusch. Professor of Law, Hamline University School of Law, J.D. 1983, University of Iowa College of Law. Since December 1996, the author has been serving as the Associate Reporter to the NCCUSL-ALI UCC Article 2 Drafting Committee. Professor Richard E. Speidel of Northwestern University Law School serves as the Reporter. The author has been attending the Article 2 Drafting Committee meetings since March 1994. All opinions in this Article are the author's alone and do not reflect the positions of NCCUSL, the ALI, the Article 2 Drafting Committee or any of its members, or Professor Speidel.
Citation
72 Tul. L. Rev. 2043 (1998)